In response to suggestions by a lunatic in the US Oval Office, Green Party Canada’s leader Elizabeth May suggested Canada should invite western states Washington, Oregon and California join B.C and split from Canada to form the ‘Cascadia’ eco-state.
(Note this article is from Jan 8, 2025 and Elizabeth May has since become co-leader of the party alongside Jonathan Pedneault).
So, instead of Canada becoming the 51st state, the suggestion is that Canada just loses BC? How about we dismiss all the options where Canada loses territory?
Also, if BC seceded, it would only be a matter of time before Quebec did too.
I’m not fundamentally against the idea of states splitting off or joining up. There’s no reason that the configuration of countries should always stay as they are in 2025. But, the reasons should be good. If there truly is a “Cascadian” culture, then yeah, maybe a nice separation agreement could be negotiated that’s fair to everyone. But, having spent time in Vancouver, Seattle, San Fransisco and LA, I sure don’t see it. The cultural difference even between SF and LA is pretty huge. And, I can’t imagine that most people in BC would be keen to accept the guns of America, and the lack of free health care. Or, going the other way, would Americans be willing to give up their guns to join Cascadia?
It just seems to me that every time the world adds borders or moves borders, the result is conflict. I hope that over time there are fewer borders, and that the borders matter less. But, the only way to do it while avoiding war is really to do it slowly.
The “Cascadia” idea wouldn’t be viable IMO. It would be better for all to just add the newcomers to an enlarged Canada. (I 100% wouldn’t want B.C. to leave Canada, just to be clear, nor any Canadian territories to be ‘exchanged’ or lost).
I’d be against any absorption that brought US gun ideology to Canada… if they’re splitting from the US, they’d better be doing so for the goals of taking on the more pacifist and commensalist Canadian values.
You realize that Canadians can own guns too, right?
Canadians were clever enough not to enshrine gun ownership as a right in the constitution. As a result, Canadians have limited gun rights, and almost no handgun rights. Sure, having guns for hunting is pretty common, especially in rural areas. But, the idea of a gun for home defense or a gun for taking on a tyrannical government is something that never took hold in Canada.
… is something that only existed in USA when it was pure utopia in terms of government tyranny. All tyranny was private - white only towns, Blair mountain, things like that. Where problems are close to what gun ownership may solve - in the former case in the wrong direction unfortunately. In some sense it was symbolic weapon ownership that suggested that citizens should own all weapons they need to fight tyranny too, and all limitations are circumstantial and shouldn’t hold when need arises for citizens to own B52’s, field artillery pieces and main battle tanks. It still remained symbolic and any government possesses all the means to squash any insurrection with small arms allowed to citizens in USA even by the measure of year 1960 (for example).
I don’t think the idea is bad. If you look long enough, all the difference between good and bad ideas fades. Good and evil may remain, but they matter only in our own choices.
Also the original tyrannical government for the USA was the British Empire. For Canada that relationship is inverted, except Quebec.